Some of the upper estimates for sea level rise are 6 feet.
I'm not quite sure which model you're following, but I think you'll find that the projections are more like 2m (6ft) rise by the end of this century (2100), but with continuing rises after that as the heat works it's way deeper into the ocean.
A small part of the sea level rise comes from melting ice, but MOST of the rise comes from the thermal expansion of water as the heat conducts (*) down into the ocean depths. Then sea level may temporarily subside, before beginning to rise again (because most ocean depths greater than a couple of km are below 4degC, where the density of water is at a maximum ; as that water warms up, it will actually contract until it passes 4degC).
(*) We may already be committed to shutting down the thermohaline density convection circuit, which is more efficient at moving heat around than conduction. It's not clear.
it will have swallowed up and vapourised the earth
That's an odds-on bet (probability > 50%) but not much higher. The red-giant radius of the Sun is uncertain by tens of millions of kilometres, and there's a fair chance that it won't actually engulf the Earth.
Things will certainly get very hot on the Earth, but consumption is by no means certain.
The increasing temperature of the sun will lead to a run-away greenhouse long before then though. We may be in the last billion years of an inhabitable Earth already.
The question referred to the election, not the primary. And from the fact that it was asked, it was probably asked by an American, who is more likely than us non-Americans to give a shit about the result.
But even we can read a question.
Personally I find the question of "is Trump serious, or is he a stalking-horse?" much more interesting than by how much Clinton is going to win.
Well, we knew that already. They've got the country gibbering in terror. But knocking the population down overnight was an impressive feat. What did they use?
Never having seen a real gun which wasn't loaded and aimed at me, I don't take too much interest in them. But surely "forgetting" that you have a gun with you is prima facia evidence of an irresponsible attitude, and storing them anywhere other than your holster while loaded is an invitation to someone (probably not the gun's licensee) to get killed.
Those are both grossly irresponsible behaviours. If someone were to be caught driving so irresponsibly, you'd at least expect them to get hauled up in front of the court, and potentially to lose their driving license for a couple of years.
So, the TSA is confiscating (and destroying) these weapons AND cancelling the gun licenses of the people in charge of the weapons AND of the weapon's owners (if different) because giving a weapon to such an irresponsible idiot is itself an act of gross irresponsibility which is incompatible with being licensed to hold such dangerous machines.
America has about 97 males for every hundred females. Since rape and homicide are very largely the purview of that minority, then it's simply a question of getting accurate rape and homicide counts for the country. If the rates are going up, then the OP is correct, but that would actually go against historical trends.
I saw that later. But it was a hypothesis worth addressing.
I spotted another issue since.
Given the 1905 (+/-5) and 2005 (+/-5) putative bouts of dimming, AND the 1890-1990 trend in dimming..
If the long-term trend is due to construction of a mega-engineering project, then the bouts of dimming indicate that they hadn't got their construction debris under control ; this is not good.
Alternatively, if the 1905 (+/-5) and 2005 (+/-5) putative bouts of dimming are due to the mega-engineering project, then WTF are they doing to the start to DIM it fairly steadily?
One way or another, it doesn't look like engineering. (Not that I believed it was, for one second.)
Do you think it is possible for the Greeks and Trojans to conspire together to eject Zeus (Jupiter) from the Heavens? Even Homer would be using his groping-stick to club you to Hades.
It's worth adding that if we go by the IAU's definition, this thing - despite being 10 times bigger than the Earth - would almost certainly not be considered a planet, due to its distant elliptical orbit.
No, it would (probably) not be considered a planet unless it was demonstrated that it had no bodies nearby which had enough proximity and mass to potentially eject it from Solar control.
The criteria are reasonably clear (astronomy, like my native geology has many confounding cases, because nature doesn't like to fit into our boxes), but gathering reliable evidence is going to be difficult. WTF - I help oil companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars searching for oil reserves - that's not easy either.
Is Dwarf Star a classification of stars or an entirely different thing?
It's a star which is not a giant.
Meanwhile, a giant star is "a star with substantially larger radius and luminosity than a main-sequence (or dwarf) star of the same surface temperature."
Basically, if you were to do the "separate this pile of examples into classes" exercise (you did do this in your basic biology class, didn't you?) on stars, you'd find two classes that account for the large majority of cases would fall into two classes, with a much smaller (this is important) number of intermediates.
if you want to count some of the other semi-small planets.
I have spent considerable time sitting on the sidelines over this.
About a year ago, I was introduced to Hal Levison's (you give a serious shit about this ; then you don't need introduced to Levison ; if you need introduced to Levison, then you're a dilettante) "Hand-waving argument", which steers a fine line between technical detail and, well the "hand-waving" of the title.
The basic idea is that growing planets balance between accretion (of their growing peers) and ejection (by their growing peers), and objects that don't pass those tests are not planets.
I refer the honourable reader (and the less honourable questioner, an AC [Hawk, Spit}) in particular to the final graph where Pluto's outstanding nature in respect of these criteria is clearly shown.
I wasn't terribly happy about the IAU's decision (I supported the "self-gravitating to a sphere" criterion), but I now better understand their reasoning. And I accept it.
No, they need to see their court-appointed psychological technician (notice : lack of reference to a "doctor" or person who may have obligations external to the Controlling State).
You do not have permission for discontent. Licenses for discontent are available at your local tax office, starting at !00,000 of $Currency$.
If this happened over a year or several, that would remain more or less in the realm of possibilities. But the recent publication shows there is also a semi-regular decline which has been happening for a century, and possibly (possibly!) another period of dimmings just over a century ago.
What would a extremely massive star turning into a black hole look like? And how quickly would the process take?
This process is one of the prime contenders for what is going on when you produce a Gamma Ray Burst. Duration from under a second to a couple of hours.
2 AU diameter is ~150*10^6 km = 1.5*10^8 km = 1.5*10^11 m radius.
Volume is then 1.4*10^34 m^3.
Let's pick a number from http://www.lpi.usra.edu/books/... for the density. 2g/cc sounds a very convenient number (2000 kg/m^3). That makes the mass 2.8*10^37kg.
About 15,000 solar masses. I rather think we'd have noticed it.
This completely ignores the photographic evidence going back 200 years.
From the recent paper:
The long-term trend in the DASCH [archived plates] light curve can be described in various ways. One way is simply to note that KIC8462852 faded from B=12.265 +/-0.028 in 1892.5 to B=12.458 +/- 0.012 in 1987.5, for a total fading of 0.193 +/- 0.030 mag in 95 years. This fade rate is +0.203 +/- 0.032 magnitudes per century (dashed line in Figure 1).
Which is nice and simple. But there is always a "but":
This end-to-end trend line provides an excellent representation of all the Harvard data except for the decade from 1900-1909. The individual plates for this decade show a similar distribution of magnitudes as in adjacent decades, except that there are many more fainter magnitudes (from 12.6 - 13.0). This might be due to the star suffering many deep dips during the years 1900 - 1909
So that's a very interesting and suggestive set of results.
And unless someone has a secret stash of plates somewhere (with all the necessary attendant data), the photons have gone by and we'll never see them this side of the heat death of the universe.
If that suggestive dip in 1900-1909 was another outbreak of "dipping" such as we've been seeing in Kepler data, I think we can take your Oort cloud hypothesis round the back of the barn with a chopper.
In particular, is it possible that a particularly dense portion of the Oort cloud has slipped between the star and us?
The time series for the Kepler observations is about 1400 days long. In that time the precession of the equinoxes will have moved the putative Oort clump 190 arcsec across the sky. Within that radius SIMBAD finds 6 other catalogued stars, including 2 other KICs (which were monitored for variations). These don't show such variations... so, your hypothesis has to do some special pleading to repeatedly vary this star, and not others in the same field of view.
We really have no idea what's in the Oort cloud or how it's distributed.
We expect it to obey the laws of gravity (such clustering will either collapse or disperse rapidly, making them extremely unusual), and to closely follow the laws of statistics.
What if two large planets recently collided, creating a lumpy ring?
The relaxation time is short - a few years at most. After which you get a relatively smooth ring. Plus you'd see a significant infrared excess from all the dust produced in the collision.
The plane of the ring could have recently aligned in our direction more, due to relative star motion, accounting for the apparent change in magnitude. Or if the ring is recent enough, it could be "wavy" such that it doesn't always fully align with us.
That requires a third body - a large planet or secondary star, neither of which are reported.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not quite sure which model you're following, but I think you'll find that the projections are more like 2m (6ft) rise by the end of this century (2100), but with continuing rises after that as the heat works it's way deeper into the ocean.
A small part of the sea level rise comes from melting ice, but MOST of the rise comes from the thermal expansion of water as the heat conducts (*) down into the ocean depths. Then sea level may temporarily subside, before beginning to rise again (because most ocean depths greater than a couple of km are below 4degC, where the density of water is at a maximum ; as that water warms up, it will actually contract until it passes 4degC).
(*) We may already be committed to shutting down the thermohaline density convection circuit, which is more efficient at moving heat around than conduction. It's not clear.
That's an odds-on bet (probability > 50%) but not much higher. The red-giant radius of the Sun is uncertain by tens of millions of kilometres, and there's a fair chance that it won't actually engulf the Earth.
Things will certainly get very hot on the Earth, but consumption is by no means certain.
The increasing temperature of the sun will lead to a run-away greenhouse long before then though. We may be in the last billion years of an inhabitable Earth already.
But even we can read a question.
Personally I find the question of "is Trump serious, or is he a stalking-horse?" much more interesting than by how much Clinton is going to win.
Well, we knew that already. They've got the country gibbering in terror. But knocking the population down overnight was an impressive feat. What did they use?
Those are both grossly irresponsible behaviours. If someone were to be caught driving so irresponsibly, you'd at least expect them to get hauled up in front of the court, and potentially to lose their driving license for a couple of years.
So, the TSA is confiscating (and destroying) these weapons AND cancelling the gun licenses of the people in charge of the weapons AND of the weapon's owners (if different) because giving a weapon to such an irresponsible idiot is itself an act of gross irresponsibility which is incompatible with being licensed to hold such dangerous machines.
America has about 97 males for every hundred females. Since rape and homicide are very largely the purview of that minority, then it's simply a question of getting accurate rape and homicide counts for the country. If the rates are going up, then the OP is correct, but that would actually go against historical trends.
I spotted another issue since.
Given the 1905 (+/-5) and 2005 (+/-5) putative bouts of dimming, AND the 1890-1990 trend in dimming ..
If the long-term trend is due to construction of a mega-engineering project, then the bouts of dimming indicate that they hadn't got their construction debris under control ; this is not good.
Alternatively, if the 1905 (+/-5) and 2005 (+/-5) putative bouts of dimming are due to the mega-engineering project, then WTF are they doing to the start to DIM it fairly steadily?
One way or another, it doesn't look like engineering. (Not that I believed it was, for one second.)
... in contrast ot the consequences of ignoring Dark Matter.
... you're going to discover what triple penetration by a trident means.
Take strong painkillers, as soon as possible.
I consider that an appropriate sacrifice to the minds of idiots.
You forgot how they are polluting your precious bodily fluids.
You want to feel privileged by having the blind law of gravity kill you, instead of a neighbour's toddler with a gun?
So ... sorry, I don't recall the cartoon where a bombastic idiot called Donald ran for president.
No ... wait ... it's coming to me ... It's Scrooge McDuck, trying to buy a presidency. No? (Or am I conflating cartoon idiots I've never seen?)
You misunderstand what the IAU mean by "cleared".
Do you think it is possible for the Greeks and Trojans to conspire together to eject Zeus (Jupiter) from the Heavens? Even Homer would be using his groping-stick to club you to Hades.
FYI - a more reasoned expression of the technical argument.
No, it would (probably) not be considered a planet unless it was demonstrated that it had no bodies nearby which had enough proximity and mass to potentially eject it from Solar control.
The criteria are reasonably clear (astronomy, like my native geology has many confounding cases, because nature doesn't like to fit into our boxes), but gathering reliable evidence is going to be difficult. WTF - I help oil companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars searching for oil reserves - that's not easy either.
It's a star which is not a giant.
Meanwhile, a giant star is "a star with substantially larger radius and luminosity than a main-sequence (or dwarf) star of the same surface temperature."
Basically, if you were to do the "separate this pile of examples into classes" exercise (you did do this in your basic biology class, didn't you?) on stars, you'd find two classes that account for the large majority of cases would fall into two classes, with a much smaller (this is important) number of intermediates.
I have spent considerable time sitting on the sidelines over this.
About a year ago, I was introduced to Hal Levison's (you give a serious shit about this ; then you don't need introduced to Levison ; if you need introduced to Levison, then you're a dilettante) "Hand-waving argument", which steers a fine line between technical detail and, well the "hand-waving" of the title.
The basic idea is that growing planets balance between accretion (of their growing peers) and ejection (by their growing peers), and objects that don't pass those tests are not planets.
I refer the honourable reader (and the less honourable questioner, an AC [Hawk, Spit}) in particular to the final graph where Pluto's outstanding nature in respect of these criteria is clearly shown.
I wasn't terribly happy about the IAU's decision (I supported the "self-gravitating to a sphere" criterion), but I now better understand their reasoning. And I accept it.
A muslim. He is, suspicious.S/muslim/non-white/ No further edits necessary.
No, they need to see their court-appointed psychological technician (notice : lack of reference to a "doctor" or person who may have obligations external to the Controlling State).
You do not have permission for discontent. Licenses for discontent are available at your local tax office, starting at !00,000 of $Currency$.
See my comments up-thread for references.
This process is one of the prime contenders for what is going on when you produce a Gamma Ray Burst. Duration from under a second to a couple of hours.
different characteristics ; different processes.
Volume is then 1.4*10^34 m^3.
Let's pick a number from http://www.lpi.usra.edu/books/... for the density. 2g/cc sounds a very convenient number (2000 kg/m^3). That makes the mass 2.8*10^37kg.
About 15,000 solar masses. I rather think we'd have noticed it.
From the recent paper :
Which is nice and simple. But there is always a "but" :
So that's a very interesting and suggestive set of results.
And unless someone has a secret stash of plates somewhere (with all the necessary attendant data), the photons have gone by and we'll never see them this side of the heat death of the universe.
If that suggestive dip in 1900-1909 was another outbreak of "dipping" such as we've been seeing in Kepler data, I think we can take your Oort cloud hypothesis round the back of the barn with a chopper.
It's an interesting one, this variable star.
The time series for the Kepler observations is about 1400 days long. In that time the precession of the equinoxes will have moved the putative Oort clump 190 arcsec across the sky. Within that radius SIMBAD finds 6 other catalogued stars, including 2 other KICs (which were monitored for variations). These don't show such variations ... so, your hypothesis has to do some special pleading to repeatedly vary this star, and not others in the same field of view.
We expect it to obey the laws of gravity (such clustering will either collapse or disperse rapidly, making them extremely unusual), and to closely follow the laws of statistics.
The relaxation time is short - a few years at most. After which you get a relatively smooth ring. Plus you'd see a significant infrared excess from all the dust produced in the collision.
That requires a third body - a large planet or secondary star, neither of which are reported.